get_messages

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only fetch and discloses the nature of the returned content, but says nothing about authentication, pagination, volume, or whether historical dates are supported. For a simple read tool this is adequate but thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and content are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the Args block is compact. Slightly redundant phrasing ('messages of the day' followed by a restatement of what is returned), but nothing wasteful enough to impede selection.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the single parameter is well documented. However, for a tool sitting in a dense sibling cluster, the absence of any disambiguation guidance leaves a real gap an agent must resolve on its own.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema's default is an empty string, so the description does the heavy lifting: it specifies the YYYY-MM-DD format and states the default is today. That fully compensates for the single undocumented parameter, though it does not say what happens on an invalid date.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch messages of the day from the school') and enumerates the content types returned (announcements, notices, information messages). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_homework or get_exams, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest siblings (get_changes, get_school_info).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as get_changes and get_school_info could plausibly surface overlapping school communications, yet the description offers no routing criteria or exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.